Just like I predicted. I sent you one link and it doesn't suit your criteria. So you have to discredit it.

* 1) Someone else discredited it, I just showed you the link.
2) This is a debate. The perpose of a debate is to discredit bogus information. All I want is FACTUAL data, something that could hold up in court. This clearly wouldn't be able to meet that criteria.

Here's another site for you to claim holds no truth, because it doesn't coincide with your theories:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

* Ok, you showed me the data. I will give you credit for that. Here is a SCIENTIFIC paper, with proper notation and everything that has an explaination for that. Basically, the majority of land mass during that time sat at the south pole, and modeling shows that conditions could have been right for year round snow, even with CO2 levels at 12x what they are today. Ill let you read it.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/CrowleyBaum1995.pdf

* And since you attack me for discrediting your websites because they don't support my theories, I will actually take some quotes from it to discredit you. Now how are you going to defend THAT.

"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

That is quote #1.

"The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

That is quote #2.

Quote 1 would have you believe that only CO2 affects climate. Quote 2 says that there are other factors. Which is it? Monte Hieb runs the website. This is a quote from http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/09/planetologist-o.html about Mr. Hieb...

"Hieb's Kindergarten approach to radiative forcing by water vapor had atmospheric science professionals laughing long before he tried his hand at finger painting palaeoclimate . The Primer's cut and paste counterfeits of curves generated by mathematical models are all too reminiscent of the statistical shenanigans that led to the 'Hockey Stick' affair being denounced by Center chairman Pete DuPont in his Wall Street Journal column."

* I think we know where the information comes from. The website has very few citiations of information like a true scientific paper should have. I had to write all my papers with citiations when I was earning my science degree to make me an ACTUAL atmospheric scientist. That's all I want from a website. I think I have sufficient proof to call the website you gave me JUNK...

Please understand I'm offering you compelling ARGUMENTS to your THEORIES I emphasize that you pay respect to that, because there is NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER EITHER WAY.

* You lost all of my respect when you attacked what you thought where my stances on other issues in re: X5. I will not show you any respect and continue to attack everything that you say. You found someone who is liberal with a backbone, the most feared thing for a right-wing churchy to come up against. The definitive answer is that global warming will happen as CO2 rises. CO2 was determined to be a greenhouse gas back in 1859 (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm), and no creditible science has disputed that. The disagreement is on its overall effect. It is a problem, one I don't want to pass onto my kids and grandkids when the evidence is there that we need to do something before its too late.

It is my belief there is no reason to be concerned with the Human impact on the Earth, I have said in a previous posting that I am all for us being Stewards of the earth. By that, I mean we should appreciate what we have, but not at the cost of looking for alternative energies when people can't afford to pay their heating bill.

* HA, is what I say. It actually cost me LESS to heat my house with the geothermal heat system I put in, even after I pay the loan each month. I pay $115.16 per month for the loan. I pay between $420-$450 to heat my house for the entire year depending on how cold the weather is. I use to use between 775 and 825 gallons of fuel oil every year to heat my house. At the current $2.30/gallon for fuel oil, that would cost me between $1782.50-1897.50 to heat my house this winter. With the geothermal, I will pay between $1801.92-1831.92, basically the same cost or a little less. And this is the lowest fuel oil has been in 4 years...

If you want to have a seperate debate about alternative energies, bring it on. Your president (and, unfortunately my president, I voted for him twice) said during his State of the Union address in 2006 that we are addicted to oil. GOP poster boy Paul Ryan says that we need to keep some of the $700 billion we send to other nations for energy here by investing in alternative energy. You already have 2 strikes against you there, do you want a 3rd?

As for the flat earth society, I've never heard of the group. It's quite funny, and it takes all types I guess. .

* You should check out all of the "Moon landing is a hoax" sites too. They have about the level of credible "science" you seem to like.

And for the guy in re: x9, most economist will agree that it takes 12-15 months for any government action on the economy to trickle down into the private sector. Give it time. Im not saying it will work, I didn't like the idea at the time, but its too early to stick a fork in it. The econonmy grew by 3.5% last quarter. That is at least a positive. The economic boom of the early to mid 90's wasn't because of Clinton/Gore, it was set up by policies of H.W. Bush that took too long to take effect and cost him the election.

P.S. I already have 73 people that are willing to sign a petition saying you are a douche. Want me to keep going?

• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests